Talk:Oasis (band)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Genre debate

In response to Oasis not being an alternative rock band: there seems to be some sort of confusion over what alternative rock is so I would highly recommend everyone go read that article. It mentions in the lead that this genre is called "indie" in the UK, and many people have labeled Oasis an indie band in this vein. Alternative rock has taken on a different definition since the 90s and Oasis certainly falls into this definition. Not to mention the alternative rock article has an entire section dedicated to Oasis and Britpop. In any case, read the Britpop article and you will see that Britpop is a subgenre of alternative rock. Since Britpop for the most part no longer exists and Oasis has pursued a different sound since the mid-90's, it doesn't make much sense to say their music is still considered Britpop. Oasis most certainly is an alternative rock band. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We should be as accurate as possible when we're describing bands. Why say "rock" when we can say "alternative rock"? Decline in popularity of a genre doesn't warrant the removal of the genre altogether, especially when Oasis are to Britpop as Nirvana are to Grunge. It is really a no-brainer. The change of sound doesn't warrant removal of the old genre either; compare Genesis, who have gone from progessive rock in the 70s to the pop sound of the early 90s. Same with Pink Floyd, who went from psychedelic in the early 60s to progressive in the late 70s and beyond. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. There's no reason to remove Britpop completely. It described their music when they first came onto the scene. But they've moved onto different types of rock now and I think "alternative rock" (or "indie rock" for the UK equivalent) best describes them now. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right as for the "alternative rock" and "psychedelic rock" genres to be added to the infobox. I also think you've made it clear with good arguments and I really do not understand why it still says "rock, britpop". I would like to discuss "indie rock" and "britpop" though. Perhaps britpop described the popular (if not alternative) rockbands of the early '90s. I honestly doubt, however, that Oasis signed to Creation because it was a key indie label. I think they were just having that good deal, much like everything else. They needed to get their stuff released, no? Apart from that, there's also their dislike for the "indie" and "britpop" tags (Noel said everything he wrote before Live Forever was too indie sounding, so = shit). If a band is really popular and they set up their own label is the best thing they can do, especially since alot of record companies in the U.K. offer very shaky deals to new bands (for example a six-album deal, but only if the first album is commercially succesful). The indie-type of mentality seems to be different from what Oasis wanted to become, the biggest band in the world. Not every alternative rock band is signed to an independent label, so I suppose that already distinguishes it from "indie rock". I do not think there is a need to put in the word "britpop" in the genre box, but as there is a section devoted to britpop in the article already. And I really, honestly fail to see how this classifies as a genre: British Popular music, that's what it means. It's not a musical genre, just like madchester isn't: it describes the scene of a place/country. If Oasis were from America, they wouldn't be dubbed britpop, even if they sounded the same. This could also lead to a discussion about what "pop music" is, if it has its own sound, because if it does, then Oasis definitely do not classify as pop. Any thoughts? --91.178.252.35 (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You did remove Britpop completely. Enigma ^message 17:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

........ no, I didn't. It was still there. It was the second genre. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, misread it. My mistake. Enigma ^message 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No one seems to want to talk about this at all, but I'm going to continue to make my point: Oasis is an alternative rock band by pretty much every stretch of the modern definition. If you don't think so, read the alternative rock article - the genre is also known as indie rock in the UK, if that is what your reservations are about. Secondly, and this is not debatable, the Britpop genre, which Oasis is best known by, IS A SUBGENRE OF ALTERNATIVE ROCK. The band also has expanded its sound beyond what Britpop came to define in the 90s so it seems they fit into other genre's of rock, too. Third, the band's own MySpace page, their listing in Allmusic, and their listing in pretty much any online music retailer (e.g. Amazon, a Google serach shows more) indicates they are labeled as "alternative (rock)". I don't see why people are so against the label "alternative rock."

Secondly, I also think we should push for the inclusion of psychedelic rock. Songs of their's, like "Rock 'n' Roll Star", "Columbia", "Champagne Supernova",[1] "Magic Pie", "I Wanna Live in a Dream in My Record Machine", and pretty much all of Standing on the Shoulder of Giants ("Go Let It Out", "Gas Panic!",[2] "Little James", "Who Feels Love?",[3] "Roll It Over", "Put Yer Money Where Yer Mouth Is")[4] are psychedelic or influenced by psychedelic rock. Furthmore, Rolling Stone in their biography/description of Oasis refer to the band as a psychedelic pop band.[5] Oasis have continued to call their upcoming Dig Out Your Soul to be a pyschedelic album.[6] [7] Feel free to discuss. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to read the above as it just seems like a really long rant. Basically, A LOT of users are reverting you, this is generally considered consensus against your changes. Also, please be aware that if you continue to revert, the blocks against you will become longer and longer. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't wanna read my justification for those edits on the talk page, that's your problem, not mine. I justified myself and provided sources, but it seems like you are not willing to actually talk about the issue, which is where these "edit wars" stem from. I would recommend if you want to avoid these situations in the future, you actually make some contributions to the discussion, instead of trying to simply cut them off. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be a consensus about anything - no where in the archived or current discussions does everyone agree to something, whether a compromise or not - it's a bunch of people who disagree and then the conversation ends. Nowhere, though, has anyone conclusively debated psychedelic rock, which I think would be a legitimate add to the article (you gave no reasons for your objections, for one thing). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all you wanted alternative rock, and now you want psychedelic rock, which is it? Nirvana and Foo Fighters are alternative rock. Oasis doesn't sound anything like them. Pink Floyd is the biggest example of Psychedelic rock. Oasis really doesn't sound anything like them either. I'd wanna see more reliable sources and a consensus for the change. But right now, it seems as though the community really doesn't wanna see the changes. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 10:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think both genres are perfectly valid. Alternative rock is somewhat of an ongoing debate, but I'm not sure how nobody has really mentioned psychedelic rock, considering the amount of references critics make to that genre in Oasis reviews. If you are going to reject both of them on the basis that they don't sound like some bands from those genres, then I need to point out what a weak argument that is. Alternative rock covers a lot of artists - people from Coldplay to The Hives to Bush - and a lot of subgenres - grunge, indie rock, shoegazing, and yes, Britpop. Secondly, I'm not really sure what you're getting at by using Pink Floyd as your example of pyschedelic rock, but they are best known for their progressive rock. Their dabbling in psychedelic rock on their first few albums is, however, a good representation of psychedelic rock. What kind of reliable sources would you like to see? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that every indication of the new album is that it is heavily psychedelic rock influenced. That would make two of the band's seven studio albums psychedelic rock albums, along with a sprinkling of psychedelic rock songs onto their other albums. I would say that's a pretty good amount for justifying the genre's addition to the band infobox. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Very much agreed. --91.178.184.34 (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Amanda Palmer song 'Oasis'

I don't know where this should go, but Amanda Palmer's new record 'Who Killed Amanda Palmer?' is out and one of the songs is called 'Oasis' and sort of talks about this band. And Blur for that matter. Should this fact go in a references section or anything? The lyrics for this song are pretty correct if you want to google them to check it out.

(Dreamling13 (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:OasisChampagneSupernova.ogg

The image Image:OasisChampagneSupernova.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:OasisLiveForever.ogg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hard rock

I've had some time to reflect on the genre debates we've had, and I've less convinced about "psychedelic rock" until there are more reviewers that mention it. But what about hard rock? To describe Oasis in the most simple manner possible, this is a band that plays pop rock compositions with the instrumentation of a hard rock band. I mean, they have lots of pop influenced melodies and song structures, but not many other bands will record their songs with a wall of guitars like Oasis has on many of their records. Any thoughts? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Live temporary members

Shouldn't Paul "Strangeboy" Stacey be on this list? I seem to remember he was second keyboard player on the Be Here Now tour, plus he played 2nd guitar at a Noel acoustic set sometime in the early 2000s... Artgarfunkelshairchad (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oasis are an English band

See The Verve, The Who, Blur (band), Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, and Queen (band). Shall I keep going? Also, "an British rock band"? Utan Vax (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying Engish implies nationality which is incorrect. Every single band outside the UK declare nationality in the intro. I could quote 1000s of bands for this. The an should be corrected to a.213.202.139.136 (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why do all those bands have "English" then? Can you explain that? Utan Vax (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

POV.213.202.139.136 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha - good one. Utan Vax (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why English is there while all non UK bands have their nationality shown? It is POV. They don't want to be more specific as people know where Manchester is. Some people's POV is that English is a nationality intentionally or not. Using British is NPOV, correct and not misleading.213.202.139.136 (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion, ironically. Please show me the guideline. Utan Vax (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about guidelines. Guidelines are irrelevant. This is about improving things. Can you give any reason why their nationality isn't mentioned in the intro?213.202.139.136 (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bands don't have nationalities, people do. The purpose of the lead sentence is to summarise and introduce, not declare nationality. There may be some argument for saying that British could be used, but there is no consensus for this change. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

We are gonna put "English" because they're from a country called "England". That's how it works... logic. Utan Vax (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAMES says introductions should display nationality. Every band from outside the UK adheres to this.

Also more importantly WP:UKNATIONALS says we should use British for a NPOV unless there's something special or notable about Oasis's Englishness; which there isn't. They are the same as every other band. British should be used and to insist otherwise for no particular reason is POV.213.202.139.136 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's perfect for me. See Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS#Do_NOT_enforce_uniformity. You've fallen into your own Wiki-lawyering. Also, that's an essay, so we're definitely not obliged to follow it. They've always been an English band since the beginning of time, ergo, it stays. Thank you. Utan Vax (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your the one trying to enforce uniformity. English is still misleading. British stays. Thank you.213.202.139.136 (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Both those policies are for biographies of people. Your summary of WP:UKNATIONALS is also incorrect, it says nothing of the sort. However, it if you're reading them you notice the sections that state; Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency – making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities – is strongly discouraged and do not edit war.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said one band is not uniformly enforcing. I'll be a good editor and I'll offer a compromise which I think is fair. Intro says English, Origin says UK or vice versa??213.202.139.136 (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please help me understand first. You still haven't explained why you think it should be changed. Or rather, you have, but it changes every time. Which is it?

1 - It is misleading. Who is going to be mislead by thinking the band is English?

2 - It is not their nationality. Bands do not have a legally defined nationality in the same way people do, so splitting hairs about it is pointless.

3 - It is POV. In what way?

4 - We should ignore guidelines. Exactly why in this case?

5 - Because WP:NAMES and WP:UKNATIONALS policy says it should. The policies you are quoting do not apply to bands, and do not say what you claim anyway.

Personally I have no particular problem with your compromise, but you've offered no sensible reason to justify it and overturn previous and current consensus. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oasis are not an English rock band. Oasis IS an English rock band. IS. not fucking are. it is ONE band, SINGULAR. I couldn't care less about the British/English debate, but at the very least use basic correct grammar, goddamn 124.185.94.54 (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an incredibly ignorant statement. There are other languages with their own separate grammatical nuances; British entities are not obligated to follow standard American grammar. Your change will not be implemented, by the way, just thought you'd like to know :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to add - please note the use of "are" in this article from The Times[8] and this article from the BBC[9]. --JD554 (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So the BBC and the Times each treated a band name as plural once. That does not make it correct usage. "Oasis is a band" is the normal usage even among Brits. Maproom (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Oasis is/has" etc certainly is not normal usage in British English. Bands are referred to in the plural in the UK. American usage is irrelevant when talking about articles about UK acts written in British English . Vauxhall1964 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence that using a singular known with a plural verb is non-standard in British English: "parliament is in session" has "about 30,000" Google hits, while "parliament are in session" has "about 1,090". Maproom (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Parliament is singular. Band is singular. Oasis is a specific group of people. It'd be like saying "You and I". Oasis are a band, just as you and I are not. 68.177.128.33 (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So, "the band are performing", "the group are performing"... do those phrases look correct to a native BE speaker? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Was that rhetorical? If not, then to me they do look correct. This has been discussed to death with football (soccer) teams. To quote from English plural#Discretionary plurals, "A number of words [...] may refer either to a single entity or the members of the set that compose it [...] In North American English, such words are invariably treated as singular". Fribbulus Xax (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't rhetorical. Thanks for the answer and the link. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OASIS CANNOT BE CALLED AN ENGLISH BAND WHEN ONE OF THEM IS WELSH. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE!

I also noticed that Oasis is used as if it is plural, when in fact it is singular. A band is a singular entity; it is composed of multiple individuals, but it is a single group. Therefore, Oasis "is" or "was," not "are" or "were." 68.54.107.114 (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MinoredinEnglish

No band names are plural if there's more than one person in the band, see Radiohead, Blur, or Led Zeppelin.Iminrainbows (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No no no no no, to the guy who said 'OASIS CANNOT BE CALLED AN ENGLISH BAND WHEN ONE OF THEM IS WELSH. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE!'

Its not that simple. Slash (musician) from GnR is actually an English born musician, so is 'The Edge' and one of the other U2 Members. So was phil lynott from Thin lizzy. I could continue. The majority of bands nationality judged on wikipedia is by there origin, in which case Oasis origin is Manchester, England. Goodbye & Goodnight. --Tukogbani (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Albums sold

They have sold more than 60 million albums, not 50 as stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.226.122 (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not nearly.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

They may have sold 60 million RECORDS, but not albums. There's a huge difference.79.66.60.23 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I put in a new reference which states they have sold 70 million actually —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.105.32 (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Popularity

Is the title for the last section a bit misleading? Whatever resurgence occured has now ended. They only managed to go #1 in two countries worldwide. Any views?--Play Brian Moore (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Top of the united world chart and sold 500,000 tickets in 2hrs a few days ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.51.149 (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

They sold out Wembley twice in 2000. Should we call that section the continuation of their popularity then?--Play Brian Moore (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "resurgence in popularity" is a very difficult term to quantify. It seems Oasis' last two tours and albums have met with much more critical and commercial acclaim than the previous ones. Multiple singles are getting very constant, long-term radio play in the United States, always the most difficult country to crack; anecdotally at least, interest in Oasis in America and England seems at its highest point since the Morning Glory days. Did they not debut @ #5 in the U.S. w/Dig Out Your Soul? I'm fine with the term resurgence being used. Hrhadam (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Err, #5 with only 53,000 copies sold??? Come on, Iron Maiden has done far better than that in the US in recent years. I also have to contest the statement that their singles are getting either heavy or long-term airplay in the US as well. 70.168.32.250 (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm presuming "commercial acclaim" is a round about way of saying album sales. The last 2 albums haven't sold exceptionally well anywhere and like I originally said, their most recent album 'only' managed to go to number one in two countries. I think the title is misleading but people obviously don't agree so I'll leave it here.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IP's changing sales figures

Anonymous IP's are persistenly trying to change Oasis' record sales to a higher figure than is supported by the citation. There is also a similar trend among all of Oasis' albums. I don't believe that it's a co-incidence and that these IP's are unrelated. Sales figures for other bands are also being reduced and random pro-Oasis material inserted into completely unrelated articles. DerrikLounds (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

They are "thundering" disgraces if you ask me and they have caused one particular user plenty of time as he has had to go around reverting all their vandalism.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's easily dealt with. I'll prot the article. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 07:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:OasisChampagneSupernova.ogg

The image File:OasisChampagneSupernova.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:OasisLiveForever.ogg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

more albums

oasis have sold around 65 million albums, almost 30 million from whats the story, about 15 from definitely maybe, approaching 10 million for be here now, the masterplan along with the live familliar to millions albums sold a combined 1 million. standing on the shoulders of giants sold another million, heathen chemistry sold 3 million and sont believe the truth sold around 5 million. so far dig out your soul has sold around 2 million. i dont know how much stop the clocks has sold but their overall album sales is at LEAST 60 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.234.69 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So as not to fall foul of WP:OR and WP:V, we would need a reference from a reliable source. --JD554 (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

official members

Zak wasn't an official member and neither is Chris. They should be signed as live members (Chris) or temporary members (Zak). Oasis have said this a million times, Oasis since 2004 is made up of 6 members: Andy, Liam, Noel, Michael Young, Karla Hart and Gem. Since Alan's departure there are no official drummers. If we said Chris is a member, then Jay Darlington is too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.245.133.195 (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree--INDIE1000 (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)